Reply to The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC..."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people. [/quote]

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?[/quote]

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic. [/quote]

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.[/quote]

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?[/quote]

Except that I was saying it would NOT make traffic worse, because it would remove those white people from the car lanes. The Connecticut Avenue plan won't make traffic worse, because it doesn't remove car driving lanes, it only removes parking.

(If it were up to me, I'd say anyone who's healthy enough to bike and lives less than 5 miles from their white-collar office should not be allowed to drive to work, but it isn't up to me.)[/quote]

Bike lanes make car traffic worse -- a lot of worse. Isn't that the point? The city is trying to make driving so miserable that people will switch to bikes. Of course, there is zero evidence that is happening. Transit data shows driving is becoming more popular, and the number of people on bikes is shrinking. [/quote]

That is not the point, and bike lanes do not make car traffic worse if you're not removing a lane of car traffic. The Connecticut Avenue plan isn't removing any car traffic and, in fact, it's adding turn lanes. No one thinks people will switch from driving to biking just because traffic is bad. They want people who live close enough to work to bike to feel safe biking.[/quote]

There will be four travel lanes.  One of them on each side also will be used by buses that will have to stop to let off and pick up passengers on "bus islands."  No doubt they will also be blocked by delivery trucks and and others.  [b]The turn lanes will likely just encourage slow Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert into side streets[/b].  The plan is poorly thought through.[/quote]

So which is it - the turn lanes will improve thruput over the status quo - so why would they cause traffic to divert to the side streets.

And the side street argument is so stupid - I live in the neighborhood and there really aren't any side streets that are faster as North-South alternatives.

If you've read the actual DDOT reports it predicts improved levels of service at all but one intersection along Connecticut Avenue.

The actual trade-off here is parking for bike lanes not vehicle thruput for bike lanes - at least have an honest argument about what is proposed.[/quote]

Unfortunately, your point is not correct.  Woodley, Cleveland Park, North Cleveland Park east-west streets have a lot of through traffic (a good but not complete proxy is the number of MD and VA license plates) that go between Connecticut, Reno, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, looking for the fastest route north and west to MD or VA or south and east to downtown. If Connecticut is constrained this will increase a lot, as will traffic on Reno, Wisconsin, etc.[/quote]

Drivers are already doing this. It isn't like those streets are empty during rush hour or other times. It isn't like there will be more cars doing it, because the roads are already full at peak periods. So it is really a red herring to argue it will be worse. I mean Reno is already backed up for most of the way between Mass and Tilden on a daily basis. Changes to CT Ave won't make it worse.[/quote]

So all of the Connecticut Ave traffic will just slip away like magic sparkle ponies?  That's good, because Beach Drive will remain closed to cars?  Or maybe all of those commuters and families with kids will just switch to e-cargo bikes.   :lol: [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics